Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Scruggs


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete. The issue that needs to be addressed is does the subject achieve notability as verified by reliable sources. Despite the article being in existence for a year, and the prompt of this debate, that has not been achieved, as the argument for deletion makes clear. The keep argument simply isn't substantial, however generous one might feel towards it. Tyrenius (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Scruggs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is over a year old. During this period its principal contributors have been encouraged to show notability and back up claims with evidence. At the end, what we have is an article about somebody who's primarily notable for her photography, but the sum of whose known photographic work is:
 * A single photograph in a single book -- and, it seems, a portrait that's included because it's a portrayal of that person, rather than because of any photographic qualities.
 * Appearance within a long list of "Famous People" of Birmingham, Ala. (Criteria for inclusion aren't specified. Write-ins don't seem impossible.)
 * Having been one person among seventeen who participated in a single exhibition: "Contour, the definitive line", an exhibition that gets at least five discrete mentions within en:WP but that doesn't seem to have got much critical attention.

It's also clear that she owns one or more works by one Patricia Gaines.

And that's it.

I had thought that a notable photographer was one whose work was critically reviewed. Critical reviews can of course be hard to dig up, so book-length collections that aren't merely self/vanity-published and/or solid evidence of solo exhibitions of more than merely local significance would be fine too. The only thing above that even seems worth mentioning is that one-seventeenth part of one exhibition. And this despite the age of the article. Negligible notability. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: In the course of the discussion below, it becomes rather clear how Scruggs got onto that "Famous People" list. -- Hoary 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.   —Hoary (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per very comprehensive nom. Does not meet WP:BIO Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard Keep She should even be kept just because of her extensive photography collection alone. I will try to list more people on Wiki who she collects OneMarkus 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this collection viewable by the public? If not, even if it's indisputably wonderful it's not immediately clear how it's significant. (Has it perhaps been bequeathed to some gallery?) Well, I look forward to reading disinterested evidence about it. -- Hoary 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The list of famous people from Birmingham seems taken from the wiki List of people from Birmingham, Alabama.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Duh, why didn't I think of that? Yes, Scruggs was added to it in this series of edits by User:Artsojourner (whom for some reason I tend to confuse with User:Artintegrated). -- Hoary 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP Just because a Hoary decides that someone whose Wiki page is already listed as a Start and not a Stub wants it removed, he decides to nominate it for deletion. Does it need to be removed? Is it Wiki ciiteria to delete an article that has been here a year without additional information added to it? If so, then there are many articles that could be deleted for this very criteria. As for Artintegrated and Artsojourner, we live in the same house and sometimes have very different ideas. Sometimes we even disagree. Imagine that! Just sounds like a particular editor here on Wiki has a bone to pick to me, especially if you consider many of his recent edits that are not Japanese but thats ok too. Artintegrated 03:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to the two objections of yours that I think I understand. 1. I decide to nominate a page for deletion based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In this case, I see no evidence for more than the most minor significance. Perhaps I'm myopic. Perhaps you can add more evidence. You are welcome to point out what I (with Johnbod and Ethicoaestheticist) have missed, or to improve the article, or both. 2. No, it is not WP policy to delete an article to which no information has been added in a year. However, if after one year no evidence has been adduced for more than the most minor of significance (despite nudging on the talk page, etc.), then the person proposing deletion can hardly be accused of impatience. -- Hoary 11:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete We've spent alot of time in the last year or so in trying to clean up this article, make it more than a big list of unorganized factoids, and trying to get a sense of the artist's notability. I fear this valuable time would have been better spent improving the articles of Wikipedically notable artists and in writing new ones for the many notable photographers on our article wish list. Scruggs has made some impressive photographs, but this fact alone does not merit inclusion - inclusion in Wikipedia is and should be limited only to biographies that meet the encyclopedia's clearly stated standards.  Hoary's well stated nomination clearly demonstrates that Scruggs does not meet this test.  TheMindsEye 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Keeping would require setting the bar for notability pretty low. Ewulp 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * KeepScruggs' notability is not an issue in Birmingham and in the community. Albeit, she is notable for her art collecting as much as her photography, she is a very big part of the social fabric there. // Many may not realize that Birmingham have their own Wikipedia program called Bhamwiki and many articles for Wikipedia came from Bhamwiki. In responding to the article "Famous People in Birmingham," shouldn't the criteria be exactly what the article is saying? Also, as I was checking out many people on that site, most do have Wikipedia articles but many do not. // This is something that should be considered here. // Another episode with this article occurred just before "Articles for deletion" took place where one of the opposing editors   deleted two artists names from her collections just before this nomination, which I think is highly unfair in the course of this process and should be checked out by WP:CIVIL before this issue is taken any further.  My vote is to Keep Artsojourner 04:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I hope you don't mind my reformatting of your "delete" vote immediately above. Now for the points that you make (as far as I can understand them): 1. I'm open to evidence that Scruggs is notable in Birmingham (or anywhere else, and for her collection or anything else). Where's the evidence? &para; 2. One putative piece of evidence for this notability was the appearance of her name within a list of famous people from Birmingham. However, this list appears to be derived from List of people from Birmingham, Alabama. I therefore infer that her appearance within that list of "famous people" has no independent value. Have I made some mistake here, and if so, what? (Incidentally, it was you who put it within the WP list.) &para; 3. You say that one of the opposing editors deleted two artists names from her collections just before this nomination. I suppose you mean that just before the AfD nomination, one of the editors voting "delete" removed the names of two artists from a description of her collection. I wondered what might be unfair or uncivil about that, but first I had to find and view it, or something like it. I can't find it. Here is the article's edit history. Which edit(s) are you talking about? -- Hoary 05:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * [After reading TME's reply immediately below:] I see now: the edit in question was this one. I don't know how I missed it, and can only guess that the unrelated change above within the same edit combined with the edit summary to deflect my attention from it. So: this part of the article claimed that Scruggs has accumulated an art collection through relationships to many artists including Ruth Bernhard, Jon Coffelt, Patricia Gaines, Chris Lawson, Jack Spencer, Melissa Springer among others. There's a reference for only one, so strictly speaking everyone aside from Gaines seems dispensable. I don't know who Lawson is; conceivably he/she richly deserves a WP article, but without a link "Chris Lawson" seems particularly dispensable here. I see nothing whatever about this edit that's unfair or uncivil (and anyway it could have been reverted). -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A major issue I have faced when trying to edit articles authored by Artintegrated/Artsojourner, is the tendency to incorporate dozens of names into every reference.  Thus a mention of a show that might include the article's subject, becomes open territory to also include many names of other artists. In trying to make sense of these articles, I find the focus on the subject is lost in the phonebook-like listings.  This is a case in point, I removed the name of  Chris Lawson from the list of Scruggs' art collection for brevity (I also removed Jon Coffelt because it seemed redundant, but am restoring his name now). Since Lawson is not a notable artist on Wikipedia, owning a piece of art from him or her wouldn't matter on the issue Scruggs' notability. In this sense, the argument becomes more and more spurious. I don't see any standards on which to judge the significance of Virginia Scruggs' art collection and whether it merits her biographical inclusion in Wikipedia. TheMindsEye 07:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still willing to believe that her collection is significant. It could have been the subject of articles in art or photography magazines. It could have been lent to some gallery or even gone on tour, accruing critical commentary. But I haven't noticed the addition to the article of any evidence for this kind of thing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable subject, unless the Wikipedia standard for notability now allows me to start articles on several of my cousins, say, who have, in fact, more prominent credentials than this soul (one of my cousins has had a solo exhibition, for instance)... Pinkville 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just Listen to how snippy you people are about this My GOODNESS!!! Its not the end all and be all. Artintegrated (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, I for one am a little tired of your spurious additions to Wikipedia. Pinkville (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Steady on. I don't remember much spuriousness. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's true... Wrong word, let's say, scant. Sorry, Artintegrated, for my snippy reply. But references please. Pinkville (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable sources have been found to establish notability -- Whpq 17:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.